Cook v. Colvin

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; granting plaintiff's 10 motion for a remand; denying defendant's 11 request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings to determine if Claimant's impairments meet or equal listing 12.05C; and dismissing this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 2/9/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

HERMAN LEE COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-20573

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the parties’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF 10
& 11.) By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on July 24, 2013, this
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF 4.) Magistrate Judge Eifert
filed her PF&R on January 20, 2015, which recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to
remand, (ECF 10), deny Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying Claimant’s application for
supplemental security income, (ECF 11), reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand
this matter, and dismiss this action from the docket of the Court. (ECF 12.)
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to
which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file
timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Plaintiff’s right to appeal this

Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir.
1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not
direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Objections to the PF&R in this case were due by February 6, 2015. To date, no objections
were filed.
Accordingly the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a remand,
(ECF 10), DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner, (ECF 11),
REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings to determine if Claimant’s
impairments meet or equal listing 12.05C, and DISMISSES this action from the docket of the
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

February 9, 2015